Injustice isn't a spice, it is a contaminant. I don't care how much you enjoy E.Coli on your pizza because "that's the way it's always been," I'll take my pizza made by androids with no bacteria, thanks.

Injustice isn't a spice, it is a contaminant. I don't care how much you enjoy E.Coli on your pizza because "that's the way it's always been," I'll take my pizza made by androids with no bacteria, thanks.

That's not what I said, I'm not against change in baseball. I said I prefer the human element in officiating over an electronic one with a particular emphasis on the calling of balls and strikes.

I'm in the camp that wants to see the correct call every single time, if possible. In the early 1900s they had no choice but to live with human error--nowadays the technology to move away from that is all there, we just choose not to use it. For instance--we see the pitch tracker after every single pitch and can immediatly tell whether it was a ball or strike.

Personally I think the botched call that cost Detroit a perfect game a few years back was the beginning of a movement that will eventually result in a dramatic shift as to how games are officiated. If a missed call ever dramatically impacts a World Series, things will get very interesting.

Exactly, and how many times have the umpires decision to call the pitch a ball or strike was different than what the pitch tracker displayed?!

I hate seeing replay get involved in baseball. Over the years we've seen human error cost games and perfect games from being pitched. That's part of the drama. With football and basketball, there is a time element where electronics comes into play in order to manage the games and so replay is now a natural part of that evolvement. Baseball has no such requirements.

If anything, as mentioned, add another umpire up in the press box who has access to replay and can overturn a field umpire's decision (non balls/strikes) only when requested by the crew chief. Perhaps limit the amount of requests per team, similar to NFL red flags.

If replay is used when base runners are involved, the same out of bounds rules should apply.

That's not what I said, I'm not against change in baseball. I said I prefer the human element in officiating over an electronic one with a particular emphasis on the calling of balls and strikes.

That's what I said. You prefer mistakes because you view mistakes as a spice. I view mistakes as mistakes. If the machine is 100% accurate, why do you want the human element? Ok, it's not because you fear change, you just really, really enjoy seeing people get screwed. I don't find that to be a compelling reason to keep the human element.

At a minimum, I want computers to determine if the pitch is over the plate. I understand that high and low may be a judgment call because different players have different stances and heights, and even the way their uniform fits. But the ball is either over the plate or it is not.

Or would someone like to explain why baseball is better when an egotistical prick like Joe West unnecessarily inserts himself into the game, or exacts revenge for the heinous crime of having the unrepentant gall to question his flawed, biased judgment, by giving one team's pitcher a strike that is even an inch off the plate, while squeezing the less-favored opposing pitcher?

Because if you favor "the human element," you necessarily and by definition prefer a system in which Joe West can do and does just that.

__________________The universe is the practical joke of the General at the expense of the Particular, quoth Frater Perdurabo, and laughed. The disciples nearest him wept, seeing the Universal Sorrow. Others laughed, seeing the Universal Joke. Others wept. Others laughed. Others wept because they couldn't see the Joke, and others laughed lest they should be thought not to see the Joke. But though FRATER laughed openly, he wept secretly; and really he neither laughed nor wept. Nor did he mean what he said.

Baseball has to be one of a few (only?) professions where human inaccuracy is accepted, even celebrated.

As an analogy: If I designed a levee system and in doing so ignored all the technology available to me, and when it inevitably failed I blamed it on the human element, I would be in jail for a good long while.

Give umps a 10 year ultimatum, pay them off handsomely and bring in the robots and lasers that will make us question why we didn't bring them in sooner.

I spent quite some time reflecting on this during the course of two games yesterday - I was in right field so I had some free time. The umpires on the day were decent, not exceptional but they did adjust over the course of the day. Ultimately both games ended fairly and the umpires were never the talking point. I asked myself would either of the games be improved by some Joe West theatrics and the honest answered was no. We have umpires that make Joe West look good so I take the points made earlier and accept my initial stance was flawed. I still do have a preference for the human element in officiating. In that regard I wish MLB had a standard that was above the Joe Wests of this world and adhered to it. I think baseball has many nuances that a computer would remove from the game - hitters adjusting to a particular umpires zone being one example that makes playing the game more challenging.

Joe Torre, executive vice president of baseball operations told reporters on Wednesday after the first day of the annual General Managers Meetings at the Hyatt Regency Indian Wells Resort.

Both the replay and roster issues were discussed, as the three days of meetings opened. They've also been discussed at the league level by Commissioner Bud Selig's select 14-person committee that studies potential on-field changes to the game. Torre is a member of that committee.

Torre said he decided to discuss further expansion of replay after calls in this year's postseason were considered questionable. MLB also is reviewing the rule that allows active rosters to expand from 25 to as many as 40 players between Sept. 1 until the end of the season.